posted at 5:31 pm on July 27, 2013 by Bruce McQuain

In an interview with AP, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made some comments about the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down a portion of the historic Voting Rights Act.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she’s not surprised that Southern states have pushed ahead with tough voter identification laws and other measures since the Supreme Court freed them from strict federal oversight of their elections.

Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press that Texas’ decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections without getting advance approval from Washington.

The premise in operation here is that, unlike the majority of the court’s finding that conditions in the states under scrutiny had changed significantly in the 40 years since the Voting Rights Act had passed, Justice Ginsburg is of the opinion that those states are like a fly in amber – exactly as they were back then when they indeed had institutionalized racial discriminatory policies in effect. Of course an impartial observer would have great difficulty reconciling her premise with reality. In fact, that observer would be hard pressed to find anything to support her premise at all. While it is certainly true that 40 years ago institutional racial discrimination was indeed a very real problem it simply doesn’t exist any more.

“The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn’t make any sense to me,” Ginsburg said in a wide-ranging interview late Wednesday in her office at the court. “And one really could have predicted what was going to happen.”

The 80-year-old justice dissented from the 5-4 decision on the voting law. Ginsburg said in her dissent that discarding the law was “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

It is interesting that Ginsburg uses an analogy that essentially validates the majority opinion. If “you are not getting wet” then the rain must not be falling on you. Or, institutionalized racial discrimination must not be happening. More importantly, there’s no longer a rainstorm. And make no mistake, 40 years ago, this is about state sponsored racial discrimination which led to the prevention and/or suppression of minority voting.

That simply doesn’t exist anymore. So why the desire for the “good old days” and not, if your job is to uphold the Constitution of the United States which is weighted very heavily in favor of State’s Rights, acknowledge that a law is no longer needed because dramatic improvements in the conditions it addressed have made it unnecessary. Instead, we get this lament and the implication that nothing has really changed.

Just a month removed from the decision, she said, “I didn’t want to be right, but sadly I am.”

She’s referring, of course, to the Texas push for voter ID which is a strawman. Why Justice Ginsburg is “sad” about that is because she and the liberal members of the court continue to believe that there can be no other reason for such a law except to again institutionalize racial discrimination and/or suppress minority voting.

It certainly couldn’t be a desire to ensure the integrity of a system most see as the most basic form of democracy and one that should only allow those qualified by citizenship to vote, could it? And it certainly wouldn’t be in reaction too a acknowledged population of illegal immigrants who have a vested interest in seeing politicians who favor their agenda elected? Of course not. Never mind that a staggering 75% of Americans support Voter ID requirements as a means of ensuring the system’s integrity. It has to be about institutionalized racial discrimination and minority vote suppression – that fly caught in amber. Nothing changes in 40 years. That is the line of thought that has to be sold for the federal yoke to remain in place.

That, of course is one reason Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has gone after Texas and intends to try to find a way to reimpose federal oversight on it and the other 15 mostly southern states freed from the fed in the Supreme Court ruling. And if you haven’t figured out the rest of the reason Holder’s doing this, it’s called politics.

“Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected,” Holder said in a speech to the National Urban League in Philadelphia.

Because the racial grievance industry still needs a job. If anything is sad, however, it is that the racial grievance industry has become institutionalized. We call it the “Department of Justice” these days.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

So Justice Ginsberg thinks that poll worker who admitted to voting multiple times for Obama that was recently convicted in the great southern state of Ohio is just a one off but the South will go back to Jim Crow?

Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press that Texas’ decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections without getting advance approval from Washington.

That’s like saying the man walking free from prison after being freed by a Supreme Court decision is evidence he is guilty.

that Texas’ decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections

No one is changing how they hold elections, they simply want people to verify they’re who they say they are.

Voting in the US is the only act that doesn’t require an ID. It’s stupid.

So if a minority shows up at the polling place and shows a valid ID and is allowed to vote, how is this voter suppression? Or is she only talking about illegal voter suppression? If so, I wish she would get her terms right.

The New Hampshire Republican Party asked Attorney General Joe Foster yesterday to investigate “potential incidents of voter fraud” involving campaign workers who registered to vote last year while staying at the home of a Democratic state senator, then left the state after the election.

Democrats quickly accused the GOP of hypocrisy, saying both Republican and Democratic staffers have voted while living and working in New Hampshire and that campaign workers often stay at a supporter’s home.

State law requires voters to establish “domicile,” which University of New Hampshire School of Law professor John Greabe described yesterday as an “inherently mushy and highly subjective standard.”

-snip-

The New Hampshire Republican Party asked Attorney General Joe Foster yesterday to investigate “potential incidents of voter fraud” involving campaign workers who registered to vote last year while staying at the home of a Democratic state senator, then left the state after the election.

Democrats quickly accused the GOP of hypocrisy, saying both Republican and Democratic staffers have voted while living and working in New Hampshire and that campaign workers often stay at a supporter’s home.

State law requires voters to establish “domicile,” which University of New Hampshire School of Law professor John Greabe described yesterday as an “inherently mushy and highly subjective standard.”

-snip-

In 2012, when they had a veto-proof majority in the Legislature, Republicans changed the state’s voter registration forms to include a notice that by registering, the voter was “subject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire which apply to all residents, including laws requiring a driver to register a motor vehicle and apply for a New Hampshire’s driver’s license within 60 days of becoming a resident.”

Supporters said it would discourage “drive-by voting” and fraud, and inform voters of their responsibilities as a New Hampshire resident. But the state chapter of the League of Women Voters and the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union challenged the new language in court, arguing it would have a chilling effect on students and other potential voters.

A judge blocked the new forms from being used ahead of the 2012 election, and the case is ongoing. House Democrats tried to remove the new language this year, but their bill died after a standoff with Senate Republicans.

Horn’s request for an investigation came after WMUR reported Tuesday that eight people were registered to vote in 2012 at the Portsmouth home of Democratic Sen. Martha Fuller Clark.

Fuller Clark, who is first vice chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, said four of those eight are herself, her husband, a son currently studying overseas and a goddaughter studying at UNH. Two were campaign workers who lived there in 2008, but have since moved away and didn’t vote in 2012, she said.

The other two voters, she said, worked for President Obama’s re-election campaign last year and stayed at the house from last summer until the end of 2012. One, she said, hoped to find a job here after the election but was unsuccessful.

“Our children are away, we have an apartment on the top floor and some empty bedrooms and I’m always happy to make them available to young people who are here on short- or long-term projects,” Fuller Clark said.

After WMUR aired its report, Horn sent a letter to Foster, a former Democratic state senator who became attorney general in May, accusing Fuller Clark of “allowing her home address to be used as a sanctuary for voter fraud” and saying the campaign workers clearly did not intend to maintain a presence in New Hampshire.

“Her behavior undermines public confidence in the integrity of our elections and raises very serious questions about the campaign tactics used by New Hampshire Democrats,” Horn wrote.

Horn requested an investigation, and also asked Foster to recuse himself from that investigation because he “could not impartially investigate” Fuller Clark, since both are Democrats and they served in the Senate together.

So if a minority shows up at the polling place and shows a valid ID and is allowed to vote, how is this voter suppression? Or is she only talking about illegal voter suppression? If so, I wish she would get her terms right.

RoadRunner on July 27, 2013 at 5:51 PM

You can’t think like a liberal if you keep being so reasoned all the time.

I do know they have helped with the motorvoter registration problem, though.

This is what you need to get a driver’s license.

•At least one (1) original or certified document to prove your Primary Identity;

IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN MARRIED OR DIVORCED: If the last name appearing on your Primary Identification document (ex. Birth Certificate, Passport, etc.) is different from your current name, then you must be prepared to present additional support documents (ex. Marriage Certificate, Certified Marriage Application, Certified Marriage License and/or Divorce Decree.).

•At least one (1) document to prove your Social Security Number;
and

•At least two (2) documents to prove your Residential Address (which can have non-essential information redacted or crossed out such as account numbers, financial figures or other information that does not obstruct your name and address);

and

•Appropriate Name Change documents, if needed.
IMPORTANT NAME CHANGE INFORMATION:If you are a US Citizen and your name has legally changed from the name shown on the Primary Identification document which you plan to provide as proof of identity (ex. Birth Certificate, Passport, etc.), then you must be prepared to present additional support documents (ex. Marriage Certificate, Divorce Decree, Adoption Decree, etc.).
◦Customers who hold a valid GA Driver’s License or ID Card are to present the original or certified copy document which supports the most recent name change.

◦Customers who are new to Georgia must provide the complete trail of original or certified copy documents which support ALL name changes.

Ginsberg is really something of a rude dimwit for all her airs of superiority. Her opinions are rarely based on law, but rather the derived logic of liberal assumptions that are themselves usually based on no more than a liberal stereotype.

Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press that Texas’ decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections without getting advance approval from Washington.

“Powerful evidence”?? Of what? What is wrong with needing to prove who you are before you are allowed to vote?

I am so sick and tired of the mental midgets we have littered through our government – from the retarded chief Justice traitor to this intellectual laugh-riot of an affirmative action pick to the ineligible third-world dog-eating retarded Sukarno knock-off running the Executive branch was his personal playtoy with unlimited power.

She merely projects that fact onto others. She is an evil, disgusting racist who would discriminate against minorities if she thought she could get away with it, and thus needs laws to restrain her and her fellow liberals from doing so.

That is the mantra we should be pushing. Force the idiot to live by her own words and ascribe to herself the motivations she tries to ascribe to others.

She’s referring, of course, to the Texas push for voter ID which is a strawman. Why Justice Ginsburg is “sad” about that is because she and the liberal members of the court continue to believe that there can be no other reason for such a law except to again institutionalize racial discrimination and/or suppress minority voting.

Liberalism truly is a mental disease.

I’m truly convinced that most of their problems lie with with issues of projecting their motive unto others and what would be their motive in similar circumstances.

I’m sure that people like her take themselves/their families to doctors that refuse to display and ID, who/what they are.

That simply doesn’t exist anymore. So why the desire for the “good old days” and not, if your job is to uphold the Constitution of the United States which is weighted very heavily in favor of State’s Rights, acknowledge that a law is no longer needed

Ginsburg, like JJJJJJ Jackson and his co-race baiter Sharpton, can’t exit the heady days of segregation and state-supported discrimination. Wiping it out has been a personal mission, and now that its nearly done, she has no idea how to form an opinion without trying to “even the playing field”, even though it is perfectly flat.

Voting in the US is the only act that doesn’t require an ID. It’s stupid.

darwin on July 27, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Remember a couple of years ago when the U.N. had election observers here, and they were astonished at the lack of voter verification procedures?

Ginsburg and her fellow brain-dead libs always like to point to the laws in the “international community” as being models for the backwards U.S. — except in cases like this, when they suddenly become curiously silent about how the rest of the world (even Third World backwaters like Afghanistan) requires ID to vote.

Justice Ginsburg is of the opinion that those states are like a fly in amber – exactly as they were back then when they indeed had institutionalized racial discriminatory policies in effect.

Well speaking as a voter in one of those states that had to get pre-clearance, I’m happy we finally get to return to putting minorities where they belong! It’s been difficult keeping up the pretense that we no longer agree with segregated schools and housing, separate drinking fountains, and opposition to bi-racial marriage. / I repeat /

I’m sure that the old womyn simply forgot about the time that her (then) fellow and uber-Progressive AJ, John Paul Stevens, wrote the decision for the 6-3 majority upholding Indiana’s Voter ID law. He wrote:

“The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.”

As if Obama doesn’t seek to and actually nullify what Congress and the states do all of the time…

‘Nullification’ when used in connection with the states is the Left’s subtle injection of race into an issue because it is a dog whistle because it harkens back to the efforts of those old (Democratic) slave states.

Well speaking as a voter in one of those states that had to get pre-clearance, I’m happy we finally get to return to putting minorities where they belong! It’s been difficult keeping up the pretense that we no longer agree with segregated schools and housing, separate drinking fountains, and opposition to bi-racial marriage. / I repeat /

Happy Nomad on July 27, 2013 at 6:58 PM

$10 says your post gets quoted on KOS Kids For Obama or some other liberal rag.

$10 says your post gets quoted on KOS Kids For Obama or some other liberal rag.

Hell, it might even go viral.

BobMbx on July 27, 2013 at 7:15 PM

No kidding. The Daily Kooks once ran a post calling me a racist because I called out Fauxchahontas for lying about her Cherokee heritage and taking the place of a real minority. Evidently, calling out another white woman for abusing a system set up to remedy past discrimination against real minorities, like Native Americans, made this white woman a flaming racist.

Along w/ most Democrats, Justice Ginsburg is not only living in the past (FDR, socialism, etc.) she (and unfortunately, far too many politicians on BOTH sides of the aisles) have NO CLUE as to how our elections are abused by ineligible felons voting, non-citizens voting, non-traceable voters whose ballots do count, double voters, students voting absentee and on site….. the list goes on and on and on.

Then again, Dems and their union cohorts don’t want voter ID b/c they will LOSE.

She might be shocked to learn how many foreigners are slack-jawed, gobsmacked (to use a good old British expression), and generally incredulous at the thought that people in the U.S. can vote without showing their IDs.

As a lawyer I am embarrassed that she sits on the highest court in the land. Can she really be this stupid to use an analogy of not getting wet? Of course you would put away the umbrella you old fool. I think senility is definitely setting in.

Guess Ginsburg is forgetting she lost that Crawford vs Marion county vote by 6 to 3 margin.

Zaggs on July 27, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Apparently, she believes that replacing a liberal justice with a liberal justice with her head completely up her a** has things going Ginsburg’s way.

Beyond that, can someone please explain to me how this can be such a hardship for minorities? Put down the flat-screen remote and the pork rinds, Skittles, or corn chips and get an ID. I had no idea that minorities were so incompetent. And how many former slaves or children of formers slaves without birth certificates are there?

So if a minority shows up at the polling place and shows a valid ID and is allowed to vote, how is this voter suppression? Or is she only talking about illegal voter suppression? If so, I wish she would get her terms right.

RoadRunner on July 27, 2013 at 5:51 PM

To disallow illegal immigrants, especially the ones who were brought here through no fault of their own, the right to vote is overtly racist! Don’t you know anything?

Maybe she should make that Racial Voter ID. If we’re going to require a certain percent of black, Latinos or other minority, we’ll need to go back to recognizing mulatos, quadroons and octoroons and Warrenoons (people who are 1/32 native American according to family lore).

George Zimmerman, for example, was wrongly branded as “white” by the media and hounded for it.

Discrimination is not checking to make sure the person is who they say they are before they vote, or that they have voted once in the right place. That is discriminatory of everyone else… and it leads to fraud. But fraud is the only way Democrats win elections so they fight it tooth and nail.

Youj’re all fools. Don’t you know that the great utopian society envisioned for America requires that the population be reduced to the lowest common denominator even if it means that foreign nationals AND THEIR SEED dilute the blood of our nation?

Justice Ginsburg is of the opinion that those states are like a fly in amber – exactly as they were back then when they indeed had institutionalized racial discriminatory policies in effect and Democrats were in control.

So, having to prove you are who you say you are when you vote is discriminatory, but when you go through the TSA checkpoint at the airport isn’t? Try entering the public gallery to view proceedings before the Supreme Court without a driver’s license or passport (no…your COSTCO membership won’t cut it)

I have heard tell a greater percentage of Blacks in GA are registered to vote than in MA.

Has anyone else heard that, or have data to back it up?

JohnGalt23 on July 27, 2013 at 5:35 PM

I did this write up a while back. Pretty much destroys the entire theory of voter ID suppression. The percentages listed are of registered voters that showed up to vote for the state of GA from 2004-2008 when the ID law came into effect.

I would suppose that if the liberal/progressives wanted to validate the “need” for the VRA as it was constituted, they should make an effort to discourage minority registration in the target States that implement a voter ID law. A really rigorous effort, which the MSM would deny existed, could potentially produce the negative “effects” that Ginsburg seems to think Voter ID laws will have.

Meanwhile, the conservatives should make every effort to increase minority registration AND get the voters their IDs.